494 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

First of all, where did Neyer defend Paterno?

Second, when the book comes out is up to the publishers. Since this one was already in progress when the scandal came out, of course they were going to push it forward as soon as it could. So any issues with editing or rewriting is on them, not Posnanski.

EDIT: Also, I have a LOT of problems with what Pearlman wrote in that post, so I don't think I'm going to be going off of what he said.

Neyer defended James' defense of Paterno.

To a degree, but Posnanski likely did add a fair amount in regards to the scandal and based on the way he has publicly reacted to it, I'm guessing it will be poor.

As far as your edit goes, yeah, I'm sure you do. At the same time, if the writers were reversed, I'm guessing your stance would be too.

[DJ MC]

Neyer defended James' defense of Paterno.

Which isn't anywhere near the same thing.

To a degree, but Posnanski likely did add a fair amount in regards to the scandal and based on the way he has publicly reacted to it, I'm guessing it will be poor.

And how has he "publicly reacted to it"? By a couple statements made when the time the scandal was out could still be reasonably measured in days?

As far as your edit goes, yeah, I'm sure you do. At the same time, if the writers were reversed, I'm guessing your stance would be too.

Well, then you guessed wrong.

My biggest problem with what Pearlman said is that he (and quite a few people, including you apparently) want to do what he believes the "other side" (at least the characterization of it) wants to do: whitewash the entire story so that only one side is told. In this case, completely ignoring everything good that was done by Paterno over the years so that all anyone will see is the awful way he apparently acted in this case.

The story that should be told is the whole story, the good and the bad. Despite Pearlman's protestations about letting things sit for a little while* I don't think that the whole story is something he would want to see, just like for a lot of people a whole story that doesn't leave out the Sandusky stuff will be unacceptable. But just because some are blind believers and others are craving blood doesn't mean that either side is any closer to being right, or having a logical and mature discussion on the subject.

*Letting things sit for a while would be the best thing. But as this whole situation proves, there is no such thing as a perfect world, and if the publisher wants the book, they're going to get the book.

That writing by Pearlman only tells me that he is someone who wants blood, and is willing to attack and damn whomever is willing to give him anything less. Well, I want the whole story, the good and the bad, and I want to read it from a great writer. Even if he fails, there isn't a writer out there that I would want trying to offer real perspective on this other than Posnanski.

[mweb08]

Actually, yes, defending the stance of someone defending Paterno is reasonably close to the same thing, since he's defending the points that defend Paterno. And yeah, he actually does defend Paterno in the same article. But, yeah, I get the distinction.

If you include the class he talked to at Penn St, it is more than a couple of comments. He also to my knowledge, has not recanted or softened his original stance since. If he has, then great, please show me. If not, I will be pleasantly surprised if Posnanski in his book or otherwise, takes a position on Paterno that I think is reasonable. The video featuring Posnanski advertising the book on that amazon link which features a graphic that mentions him as a humanitarian doesn't do much to make me think differently, nor does Joe's remarks.

Well maybe I did guess wrong, but it's hard to ignore your bias towards Posnanski.

Sure, the whole story should be told, but that entire story should also be framed differently now that we know what we know. A book that was intended as and written as a book about how great Paterno is/was should receive a major rewrite as I don't think it's appropriate to make him out to be an incredible man for the first 350 pages and then to simply add on the Sandusky scandal towards the end in a likely more positive way than most would portray it. I think most writers would agree that if something happens that greatly and rightfully alters the perception of their subject after the author has already written most of the book, that it would be wise to start over (of course they'd still use a lot of the same info/writing) with that new outlook in mind.

[DJ MC]

Sure, the whole story should be told, but that entire story should also be framed differently now that we know what we know. A book that was intended as and written as a book about how great Paterno is/was should receive a major rewrite as I don't think it's appropriate to make him out to be an incredible man for the first 350 pages and then to simply add on the Sandusky scandal towards the end in a likely more positive way than most would portray it. I think most writers would agree that if something happens that greatly and rightfully alters the perception of their subject after the author has already written most of the book, that it would be wise to start over (of course they'd still use a lot of the same info/writing) with that new outlook in mind.

Well, it isn't as though he had the thing written and turned in before the scandal broke. It wasn't scheduled to come out for another ten months beyond this updated publication date.

Plus, again, it may not have been his decision, or as much of his decision, as is being made out to be.

[mweb08]

Well we'll see how it is when it comes out I guess, although I'm not planning on reading it since it seems like it will most likely be a book that is written as if the scandal didn't happen except for when the scandal is mentioned. And like I said, I expect it to be too rosy of an outlook on it considering what happened.

[DJ MC]

Well we'll see how it is when it comes out I guess, although I'm not planning on reading it since it seems like it will most likely be a book that is written as if the scandal didn't happen except for when the scandal is mentioned. And like I said, I expect it to be too rosy of an outlook on it considering what happened.

You do whatever you feel you have to do.

[bnickle]

The different generation defense of Paterno is disgusting. Why can't people accept that Paterno was willing to do whatever it took to protect his program and legacy. I mean come on, he knew exactly what was going on and covered it up to protect himself and everything he built. I mean I understand how big of a decision that is, I understand it takes a big man to basically tarnish your reputation and legacy to do the right thing when it's much easier to sweep it under the rug and probably get away with it. I'm just tired of people being so gullible in regards to this man. That's not me passing judgement, that not me taking away from I'm sure a lot of good he did in his life. Bottom line was when the going got tough, when he was faced with the decision of a lifetime he failed and failed in a big way. I'm sorry but you see the heart of a man when faced with adversity. I understand what doing the right thing would have meant to Paterno and his legacy. If he had done the right thing at any point it still would have tarnished his legacy in some way. Ultimately, what you see is another man with power who can't humble himself, can't give up even a little bit of that power and pride to do the righteous thing.

[mweb08]

You do whatever you feel you have to do.

Odd response and thanks, I was planning on doing that anyway.

[DJ MC]

Odd response and thanks, I was planning on doing that anyway.

You've obviously made up your mind on the subject, so it really doesn't do any good to try and persuade you. I want to get every bit of information on the topic as possible to give me the best possible base to develop my thoughts, so I'm willing to wait until this book, and any others, comes out before just declaring it a waste.

[mweb08]

You've obviously made up your mind on the subject, so it really doesn't do any good to try and persuade you. I want to get every bit of information on the topic as possible to give me the best possible base to develop my thoughts, so I'm willing to wait until this book, and any others, comes out before just declaring it a waste.

There is a lot of information out there and it's more than enough to make a logical conclusion imo. You love Posnaski so you stuck up for Paterno when Posnanski did and will give his book a shot as well. If more information regarding this issue comes out, I will be glad to reconsider my position. We will see.

I'm also not declaring Posnanski's book a waste, I'm just saying that I don't plan on reading it. I'm sure it would have been a tremendous book if not for the Sandusky scandal breaking out, and it will still be well written and have some interesting stuff about Paterno in it. I just don't expect it to provide what I consider to be a proper perspective on the Sandusky situation due to Posnanski's take after the story broke, his apparent lack of a change of heart on it, and the likely lack of a total re-write, which I think would make sense to do, but he hasn't been given the time to do so and he may not want to do so based on said stance on the matter.

[SammyBirdland]

'Paternoville' changed to 'Nittanyville'

http://www.abc27.com... ... ttanyville

[Oriole85]

Remember after Joe Pa's death when they're were calls to rename the stadium or name the field after Paterno. Those efforts have been pretty quiet recently.

[SammyBirdland]

Someone has a banner flying over Penn State today that says "Take the statue down or we will" referring, obviously, to the Joe Paterno statue that still stands outside the football stadium.

http://www.961kiss.c... ... e=10274637

[bnickle]

http://www.961kiss.c... ... e=10274637

Seriously, I can see this happening. Well at least people trying to remove it or deface it. Are they going to guard that statue 24/7????

[mweb08]

BTW, I skimmed through the old foxhole thread on this and have a few thoughts. I'm definitely pleased with how I posted. I wonder how crissfan thinks now. VaTech made what I thought were some curious and poor points defending Paterno, but seemed to come around to an extent towards the end of the thread. It is rather amazing to see the drastic turn BTerp took after Posnanski came out with his thoughts. All in all an interesting thread to re-visit.

[Oriole85]

Are they going to guard that statue 24/7????

Probably, not to mention surveillence cameras. Think PSU PD is big enough they can have atleast one officer guarding it indefinitely.

[bnickle]

Probably, not to mention surveillence cameras. Think PSU PD is big enough they can have atleast one officer guarding it indefinitely.

I totally expect cameras but I really think they might have to put someone on it at all times. For the very least, until thing blow over a bit.

[DJ MC]

Probably, not to mention surveillence cameras. Think PSU PD is big enough they can have atleast one officer guarding it indefinitely.

Unfortunately, I think there are some people crazy enough that I would be worried about the safety of that officer.

[DJ MC]

There is a lot of information out there and it's more than enough to make a logical conclusion imo. You love Posnaski so you stuck up for Paterno when Posnanski did and will give his book a shot as well. If more information regarding this issue comes out, I will be glad to reconsider my position. We will see.

I "stuck up" for Paterno because at the time almost nothing was known about the depth of the scandal, and people were attacking him with no regard to whether or not he had a thing to do with it. Now we have evidence that he had quite a bit to do with it--or at the very least showed a stunning amount of inactivity over a very long time--so with that knowledge my views have evolved.

You're acting like it is a crime to wait for information or defend those being (possibly) unjustly attacked, or listening to the opinions of a respected person with more information than I have. I'm not sure why you find this to be so horrible, but like I said earlier everything you are posting makes it sound like your mind is made up on everything.

[mweb08]

You didn't wait at all. You had no problem making points against him and going off the information we had at hand, which was plenty to go off. Then when Posnanski made his opinions known, you totally changed your tune. Why can't you just admit that's why?

There's nothing wrong with wanting to know more, but there is something wrong imo with making a stance based on the information at the time, but then acting like everyone is going off insufficient information because your favorite writer said so while defending a person that he had become very close to and one could reasonably think is biased on the subject.